USCA11 Case: 21-10428 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10428 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

GEORGE WILLIAM WHEELER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket Nos. 5:12-cv-08027-KOB, 5:09-cr-00260-KOB-HNJ-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10428 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10428

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: George William Wheeler, a federal prisoner, appeals the dis- trict court’s order construing his motion filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 as an unauthorized second or succes- sive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate and dismissing the motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The government, in turn, has moved for summary affirmance of the district court’s or- der. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a § 2255 motion as second or successive. Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Llewlyn, 879 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018). A district court abuses its discretion when it “applies an incorrect legal standard” or “follows improper procedures in making a determination.” USCA11 Case: 21-10428 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 Page: 3 of 5

21-10428 Opinion of the Court 3

Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2015) (quo- tation marks omitted). Normally, a federal prisoner must collaterally attack his con- viction and sentence through a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); Boyd, 754 F.3d at 1301. Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a prisoner can file only one § 2255 motion as a matter of right and must receive our per- mission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Boyd, 754 F.3d at 1301; see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), cross-referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Without our authorization, the district court lacks jurisdic- tion to consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). When an earlier habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice or on the merits, a later petition is considered “second or successive.” See Boyd, 754 F.3d at 1302. In classifying post-judgment motions, we have determined that the style of a motion is not controlling. Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258 (11th Cir. 1988). Post-conviction mo- tions that raise “an asserted federal basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction” should be construed as habeas pe- titions, subject to the AEDPA’s requirements. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530–32 (2005) (addressing when Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions should be construed as habeas petitions). The Su- preme Court has explained that a motion for reconsideration is to be treated as a successive habeas petition if it (1) “seeks to add a new ground of relief”; or (2) “attacks the federal court’s previous USCA11 Case: 21-10428 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 21-10428

resolution of a claim on the merits.” Id. at 532. Where, however, a motion for reconsideration “attacks, not the substance of the fed- eral court’s resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings,” the motion is not a successive habeas petition. Id. Here, there is no substantial question that the district court properly dismissed without prejudice Wheeler’s motion. Groen- dyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162. To begin with, although Wheeler claimed that the district court failed to address his Sixth Amend- ment Confrontation Clause claim, the record shows that he did not raise such a claim in his original § 2255 motion or the amendments thereto. So although he claimed he was attacking the integrity of his § 2255 proceedings, Wheeler was instead seeking to raise a new claim for relief and attacking the district court’s previous resolution of several of his other claims. Thus, the district court properly con- strued these motions as second or successive § 2255 motions. See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532. Wheeler brought before a § 2255 motion, which the district court denied with prejudice. And because he did not receive our permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider his motions. See Boyd, 754 F.3d at 1302; Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216; 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Thus, the government’s position that the district court properly dis- missed without prejudice Wheeler’s motions for lack of jurisdic- tion is “clearly right as a matter of law,” and any appeal would be frivolous. Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162. USCA11 Case: 21-10428 Date Filed: 04/22/2022 Page: 5 of 5

21-10428 Opinion of the Court 5

Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance. Wheeler’s motions for judicial notice and discovery are DENIED.